What the fuck did I do #2

If the GM fast forwards the game, doesn't ask the players what they did in that time and suddenly says your wife is cucking you because you're an absent husband. He is a fucking cuck and literally designed said story hook to force his magical realm on the table.

Op make quest that lead him away from wife and cuck him as an ah ha moment..

Is that you, OP? No, if the GM puts infidelity in a game specifically to target a player with it as a plot, he's definitely an asshole, and possibly a cuck fetishist. Infidelity as a plot point between NPCs is not the same. It's forcing a player into it that's magical realm-y and makes him That DM

tldr for anyone new to the thread

op is a cuck, forces his fetish on the new guy because he's a "jock", and is now claiming it was in the nature of "good literature".
same op also stated that if the PC getting cucked reacted in a realistic way or in any way tried to work with the setting the local lord would take revenge because he was close friends with the innkeeper who was cucking the PC

This. It's fucked up because That GM held all the cards. The motherfucker was probably smirking, thinking of pulling this shit.

WHY THE FUCK DID YOU MAKE A NEW THREAD!?

But those are lies. Why do you tell lies, user?

Why did you make a new thread? I don't think the GM was in the wrong for the initial story, but this really doesn't need a round 2

tldr for anyone new to the thread

If you put anything into your game that does not conform to Veeky Forums's sensitive sensibilities, they will chimp out like it's Detroit.

OP did nothing wrong, there is no safe space for PC's in game other than there own character actions.

If Homer could keep Penelope faithful in the Odyssey and not compromise his work for it, you could totally have kept a background NPC faithful to avoid making a player unhappy.

You're not only a cuck OP, you're a shit person and lucky your bro is such a great guy.

>If the GM fast forwards the game,
shit that never happened. just admit ir. Your the players. Your wife cucked you. That's why you are on a crusade.

I was on your side OP, but this shit doesn't need another thread.

You got all your answers in the previous thread and all that's left is shitposting.

At this point you're just stirring up shit.

Why would this surprise you or anyone else who browses this place?

Penelope was a Queen and was therefore well provided for, and was furthermore protecting the dynastic future of her children by not re-marrying.

No, only cucking.
it's possible to include it for plot reasons without it being magical realm, but it is so close to it that it is best to avoid. the same with rape, amazonians, and biological waste.

Odysseus at least provided for his wife.

OP from last thread didn't make this. The guy the keeps yammering on about cucks did.

>Penelope was a Queen and was therefore well provided for, and was furthermore protecting the dynastic future of her children by not re-marrying.

She was also being bled dry by suitors over a husband that was in all probability (as far as she knew) dead. She further resisted remarrying even past the point Odysseus himself told her to remarry (when the first beard grows on Telemachus' cheeks).

>i-it wasn't me guys I s-swear
>1st post is the OP from the last thread

Odysseus didn't send his wife shit, he couldn't. The estate was being eaten up.

Okay faggot. I'll go pop a second bag of popcorn

> He wouldn't be on a crusade if he got cucked
Fuck, I'd murder the bitch

While I'm at it, she was resisting remarrying even as her family was pressuring her to remarry. There's a reason she's considered an icon of fidelity, and that's because she remained faithful in a truly extraordinary circumstance.

Remarrying would have left her in a shit situation and her son without power. The only reason she even had the luxury of resisting was because Odysseus left her a grand estate, so she could survive while delaying remarriage.

The player's wife was a barmaid who didn't get a single penny from the character and needed to scrape by to survive.

>If your NPC doesn't live up to the standard of what I admit is considered a PARAGON of virtue it's a shit character and you're a bad storyteller

Mate, you are the shitty storyteller here.

>Didn't get a single penny

According to OP, who probably never asked if the player was sending any to his off-screen, backstory wife.

>Remarrying would have left her in a shit situation and her son without power.

Remarrying would have linked her to the estate of another powerful man of Ithaca, it's not as though Odysseus was the only wealthy person to exist on the island. Her situation was deteriorating without an end in sight. The whole fucking point of her character is that she remained faithful even when it would have made sense not to.

>The player's wife was a barmaid who didn't get a single penny from the character and needed to scrape by to survive.

You mean a stably employed person? But even at that, it doesn't fucking matter, because the OP should have known well enough that adding such a detail would piss off his player and grind the game to a halt (the player may have overreacted, but this is an extremely common hangup). What makes sense (basically anything can be construed as making sense with the right choice of rhetoric) is fucking irrelevant.

>I'm justified in running my game in a mean spirited way because the real world isn't perfect
No. Don't be That GM

No, if you don't structure your game to enhance your player's enjoyment of the game, you're a failure of a DM, full stop.

>I will get retardedly angry and sperg out if the magical realm isn't precisely to my specifications and contains anything that might hurt my delicate sensibilities
You're That Guy. Just in general in your life, not just in tabletop gaming.

Fuck that, you're a shit player.

Occasional discomfort is okay for an eventual bigger pay off. Grow the fuck up.

I mean if you really want to be pedantic, the vast majority of "Barmaids" were in fact, prostitutes, who said they were Barmaids in order to be taxed less.

So players wife was likely LITERALLY a whore.

Who knew /pol/tards were such easily triggered delicate snowflakes?

>Soy boy cuckold "intellectual" punishes the jockiest player by not letting him have an immaginary hot wife
How surprising, was the bull black as well?

>occasional discomfort

Digging at an extremely common insecurity does not apply. You grow the fuck up and learn that people care about some things more than others, you shit-heap.

What bigger payoff? All the OP could think of was that the PC would kill the adulterers, at which point he would punish him by treating him like a criminal, with literally no thought to any kind of payoff. Don't be disingenuous

The player, if they indeed behaved as the incredibly unreliable OP leads us to believe, was in the wrong too. You cool now? Don't be That GM.

Back to /pol/ with you

>Gee player all you had to do was forgive and save your unfaithfull wife from bandits so that she could cuck you again for the sake of my fetish
OP kys

Literally everyone else

You don't be disingenuous. The pay off is a more believable world, and a sense that actions have consequences. I'm not playing a videogame here where everything must go right.

Honestly, between you faggots and OP, I'd rather play a game with OP because he sounds like a much better GM than any of you.

After every return, does he go to the wife or not?

>t. soy boy

> Don't be disingenuous
No that's you. You yourself know there was an intended character arc where the player gets to rescue his wife, or not, and he can use that to either get back with his wife by demonstrating his manliness or kick her to the curb for catharsis.

Why are you such a liar, user?

>OP wants to roleplay with himself
We already told you it'd be a mercy to spare people from your bullshit and write your schock in solitary.

You mean that uninformed inaction has arbitrary consequences, as decided by someone untrustworthy? The player isn't hooking up to a VR simulation, faggot, he's playing with people he thinks are his friends. Have you ever even played a tabletop game?

I didn't know about this "character arc", user, and neither did the player. I wouldn't trust you to run that in a way that was at all enjoyable from what I've seen here. Reading your posts, I'm pretty sure you were planning to have her killed at the end and just haven't admitted it here.

He did but because OP thought it was weird to roleplay the wife he instead decided the player was an absent husband who only showed up to fuck and sleep and didn't pay any attention to her needs.

I begin to think OP is a woman.

>Have you ever even played a tabletop game?
Yes, more than you and with better people that you.

If I went to the trouble of writing a wife into my backstory, I'd go to the trouble of mention to the GM that I'm sending her money, and pay attention to what he says when I interact with her, instead of passively hoping that everything will be a-okay. Neither of these things are something the player did.

Why would I include any detail into my backstory if I didn't intend for it to come up in the game?

The lie is unironically more enjoyable and less player-unfriendly than your bullshit.

You think that because you're a shit player/GM, in addition to being a shit person.

Also I highly doubt the /pol/tards sperging out in impotent spergtard rage have ever actually played ttrpgs.

OP. in the end the guy may or may not find another RP group and be happier either way. You on the other hand will be back here in a couple months after pissing off another player with your bullshit.

>avoiding amazons
>ever
???

Okay, listen here user. Maybe we've got our wires crossed because we're not communicating correctly. I appreciate players like you in my games, but I don't take that as a reason to forget I'm responsible for my own creative decisions and how I use the power invested in me as GM. If you ever forget to do those things, it's my job to remind you, not to go out of my way to use it against you, because the fact that we're playing together makes us friends.

>REEEEEEEEEEE if you don't like cuckoldry and railroading you're /pol/
>NEOGAF
>E
>O
>G
>A
>F

Oh wait that shit's dead, no wonder we have so many sociopath faggots who clearly don't belong here lately.

To add to this, if you ever decide that you want your character to be an absentee husband and to renege on paying his wife, I want that to be a conscious choice on your part, not an error in communications. I don't see how you'd ever get a good game out of enforcing the kind of bullshit OP did.

If a player neglects to do something important or makes a dumb mistake that doesn't mean it's the GM's job to remind him before any real consequences occur. I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I also have only had characters with wives or families they are taking care of when I'm actually going to do things like send them money or pay attention when they're relevant. If he actually cared about it he should have treated it like an actual character motivation

Stop being reasonable

Ok, what the hell is NeoGaf?

Isn't Neogaf some video game forum? What does that have to do with /pol/ or Veeky Forums?

You're wrong. As a GM I play with the players. It's my job to communicate with them accurately. It's not my job to count their gaffes and use them as nails for their coffin. If we're playing together, we're already friends. If it's not my job to remind you as a GM, it's my job as a friend.

>torture? sure.
>slaughter dozens of things that have language, tools, and families? sure.
gnomes being a core race? sure.
>doing plot and combat irrelevant romantic role-playing with a character the GM will have to play, while all the other players just have to watch? sure.
>the irrelevant romance character getting tired from being left alone for weeks or possibly months at a time, not sharing a child or home with the man, the man probably not being someone her parents would approve of, possibly is a prostitute, and thus leaves the player to instead be with a man who's less likely to die is actually there for her and has more money? You fucking KEK trying to ME I mean, uh, this poor player of yours, with your KEKOLDRY fantasties? Who cares about characters doing things that make sense from their perspective?! Who cares about infidelity being a common theme in ancient literature, and happens plenty of times in real life?! Who cares that the only player at your table who disagreed with you was the one that tried to assault you!? Who cares that he could try to win her back, get revenge on them, or just move on!? YOU FUCKING KEKED HIM YOU KEKING KEK! THIS MUST BE YOUR FETISH, EVEN THOUGH TRAPS (THE DUNGEON KIND), MONSTERS, AND DEATH ARE NOT YOUR FETISH EVEN THOUGH YOU DEFINITELY SPEND MORE TIME FOCUSING ON THOSE THINGS THAN YOU DO ON THIS!
I'M OKAY WITH MY CHARACTER DIEING A GRUESOME DEATH SINCE THAT'S FAR REMOVED FROM MY OWN PROBLEMS, BUT FOR A WOMAN TO LOSE INTEREST IN ME HIT TOO CLOSE TO HOME!

>get the climbing gear
>climb down the mountain
Oops forgot to say I equip them.

So OP assumed one line about character being married to saucy barmaid means that player excepted her to actually be important in his adventures to save the world and shit instead of having a teasing wife in background?
I bet he offhand mentioned that she had money problems like once when players were fast travelling to castle of Lich MurderMaster

I don't consider pointing out potential complications a character makes in a game a tenant of friendship. There's obviously the basic manner of communication you are expected to have as a DM, but tying friendship up with results from playing DnD just comes off as petty and pathetic.

Did you seriously not feel embarrassed and autistic typing this out? Please take a step back and look at your life.

The GM refused to roleplay the PC's relationship with his wife.
He forced the PC to be an absentee husband and then punished him for it because cucking the table's jock helps him with his highly ritualistic "literature"-enhanced masturbation.

>Active pursuit
Fine
>fade to black and limited interaction
No

>it's my job to remind you
Setting aside the fact that the OP specifically mentioned that the wife asked for money and was feeling lonely, to which the player didn't react.

I, as a player, would expect you to hold me accountable for my decisions and to provide believable consequences, regardless of the fact that I had intended for that to happen or not.

You see, part of the reason I play TTRPGs is because actions have consequences, sometimes consequences I didn't intend and couldn't forsee. That's where the fun comes from, trying to deal with consequences, as long as I can accept that they're reasonable.

It is a lot less fun to play a game when I tell you before hand "Oh yea, I want my wife to cheat on my character in this game" than it is to play a game where the wife cheating on the character comes out as a natural consequence of his actions, which could prove to be an interesting character arc and help him grow as a person.

When I'm at the table, I expect that we're all adults that can deal with our emotions in a sane way, and I expect the GM to provide reasonable consequences (not "rocks fall, you die" bullshit) and I expect the players to be able to deal with those consequences and their characters to grow and evolve.

Basically, to me it sounds like your games are boring and without tension outside of the occasional combat, and the only emotion is "mild enjoyment."

That's perfectly fine, but if I wanted that I'd play a videogame.

Neogaf was progressist /pol/ if /pol/ was an actual cult and not just a load of shitposters getting triggered off each other.

The player interaction with the wife was also limited because the DM find it weird.

Yes, you could interpret that in the most extreme way possible where it would be wrong, but if you're seriously suggesting that the reverse isn't true that players can't be held accountable for doing stupid shit without being given some sort of hint I disagree. The point of a GM is to arbitrate. The basic idea is that a good GM knows where to draw the line, but you don't seem to understand that

The potential complications a character makes in a game should be in the "public record" of the campaign, not something I came up with without asking the player. If he wants to play an absentee husband, fine, but it's not my place to assume he's playing an absentee husband just like it's not my place to assume he's fatally constipated because we don't regularly dedicate a scene to his character going to the bathroom.

Not as limited as you make it out to be. The information was there and the player chose to ignore it.

You stacked all the cards against him and then punished him for failing.
You're a shit DM.

I'm sure the GM didn't have the PCs running from lich to dragon, making the PC staying at home a complete derail of the campaign that any player would know would never go well. C'mon, user. OP isn't someone reasonable.

Let hope op give us a detailed rundown on one of their interaction, before the infidelity.

>The potential complications a character makes in a game should be in the "public record" of the campaign
Why should players know everything (or really anything) that's happening behind the scenes? His decisions in how he played his character made him an absentee husband

I'm not the OP, but I do side with him on this.

But how was it delivered?
Was it offhand mention while they were travelling through the town?
Or was it delivered by conversation with wife?

Want cards did he stack against him? It seems to me like the expectation just judging by OP's responses was the game was very much grounded in consequences due to player inattention.

he did, it's just been misread so many times no one knows or cares any more

OP did nothing wrong
Way too many 'Cuck 'Vengers'
/thread.

Since we're making assumptions here, I going to assume that the OP game the players some reward in gold at some point. Said reward was then spent in it's entirely on shiny new weapons and armor, and none was left to send to the wife.

Literally saying a sentence "I send 10 gold pieces to my wife" at the end of a quest would have done nothing to derail the campaign and would have gone a long way towards preventing infidelity, and as a bonus also towards convincing the GM that the character cared about his wife.

No. I disagree. The player should be fully cognizant of roleplaying details like this, because otherwise there's going to be dissonance. The player clearly didn't think he was playing an absentee, and if asked would've probably said he sent letters, or made promises, and likely sent money, but the GM was more interested in making the character into an absentee than in letting the player play the character he wanted to play.

This is why one of the things That DMs are known for is making paladins fall. They don't understand that they're playing with the player's character. The player's interpretation of their own actions and stated motivations trump the GM's in almost all cases. Otherwise literally nobody is happy.

>Wife complains about money problems and player being away
>But DM says he doesn't want to roleplay the player's relationship with his wife
>And never asks if he's sending her money or writing her.

The asshole was commited to his "save your cheating wife from kidnappers" storyline and wouldn't let the player salvage his marriage before being punished anyway.

>20 posters
>90 replies
Someone's getting triggered AF.

Remember: Long distance relationships suck. They suck worse when there's no such thing as a phone in the setting.

Pic is how to prevent yourself from getting the C U C C.

>As a GM I play with the players.
This virtue signaling is heavy. Also not a GM.

It's like I'm really on /pol/!

Literally asking "Do you send any of this gold to your wife?" would have done nothing to derail the campaign either, but the GM never asked, and so it's on him that the player didn't think it was fair that it ended up in "it's all your fault for being a shit husband".

>he sent letters, or made promises, and likely sent money
Letters and promises maybe I can see as something the GM would assume the player would send, but not money. Money is something the players spend consciously, and the GM is discouraged from making decisions for them. It is also very likely that they spent every cent they had on shiny new armor.

Basically, the player wrote something into his backstory, but didn't want it affecting his character in any way, didn't want to care about it in any way, and didn't want to make any effort about it. At this point, he might as well haven't included anything in his backstory.